Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, the new TV agreement should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs of regional conferences that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

(03-01-2018 01:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

It is my understanding, though I could be wrong, that ESPN Plus is a pay per view pay wall streaming service. Which means no one who is not already a SBC fan will ever watch. If it is an included network on the espn package with your cable company, like ESPN3, then fine. If it is pay per view, the deal sucks big time.

(03-01-2018 01:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

Correct. We pay for ESPN networks in our cable bill. Let’s look st the numbers first, but this is a big deal to have all sports on the networks and a keystone of ESPN Plus. I’m told our ESPN 3 games are some of the more popular non-P5 programs on the streaming format. That means our fans, wether they are showing up in person or streaming the games, have a lot of interest in watching the SBC. This give us a chance to monetize that.

(03-01-2018 01:19 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

It is my understanding, though I could be wrong, that ESPN Plus is a pay per view pay wall streaming service. Which means no one who is not already a SBC fan will ever watch. If it is an included network on the espn package with your cable company, like ESPN3, then fine. If it is pay per view, the deal sucks big time.

ESPN is likely moving almost all their ESPN3 content behind a paywall. The only way to avoid it would be for a conference to leave ESPN altogether. And that won’t pay near the same

(03-01-2018 01:19 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

It is my understanding, though I could be wrong, that ESPN Plus is a pay per view pay wall streaming service. Which means no one who is not already a SBC fan will ever watch. If it is an included network on the espn package with your cable company, like ESPN3, then fine. If it is pay per view, the deal sucks big time.

You do understand that it won't be exclusively Sun Belt games on ESPN+. Most of the good ESPN3 content will move over to ESPN+. ESPN is apparently also negotiating to add some NHL and MLB content in addition to all out-of-market MLS.

(03-01-2018 01:19 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

It is my understanding, though I could be wrong, that ESPN Plus is a pay per view pay wall streaming service. Which means no one who is not already a SBC fan will ever watch. If it is an included network on the espn package with your cable company, like ESPN3, then fine. If it is pay per view, the deal sucks big time.

It’s not like Sun Belt sports are going to be the only thing that ESPN+ offers. They are building a package that includes access large franchises like MLB and MLS. There will be content that ESPN is currently offering “for free” on ESPN3 that will switch to ESPN+.

Even if ESPN+ was solely Sun Belt content, I would be more than willing to pay $5 a month to watch ESPN quality broadcasts of Georgia Southern sports. Streaming is becoming the new norm. Schools with large fanbases who are willing to purchase subscriptions will reap the benefits.

Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

I don't think many here want to be reorganized with CUSA, unless it's with two, three, MAYBE four particular schools that would add value from a geographical/reputation standpoint.

I doubt the Sun Belt presidents would want to either. Sun Belt is now splitting revenue between only 10 teams in football, 12 teams in basketball, we now have a football CCG, new ESPN TV deal with more money... Sun Belt is in the best shape its been in over a couple of decades in my opinion.

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

YES we can! Thought you would never ask.

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

I suspect all thats happening is your ESPN-3 games are moving to ESPN-Plus. You'll still have the same number of games (or pehaps even more if Benson had a good day) on linear ESPN networks like ESPN and ESPN-U.

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

I brought this up on another thread, but it's worth repeating.

Back when we were in the SoCon, some of our best attended games were against Furman University and Wofford College (two private schools with small enrollment, the latter being the smallest enrollment of any DI school).

Our attendance was better against those small private schools than a few of the larger public schools because more of our fans wanted to watch us play those small schools because the small schools were relevant in FCS.

Likewise, I can be pretty sure more of our fans would rather see Ark State or ULL than UNCC or FAU and attendance overall would also be better with the former two.

The travel costs savings are just not going to justify what we could get by bolstering the value of the TV contract and improving the CFP payouts each year.

(03-01-2018 01:19 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

It is my understanding, though I could be wrong, that ESPN Plus is a pay per view pay wall streaming service. Which means no one who is not already a SBC fan will ever watch. If it is an included network on the espn package with your cable company, like ESPN3, then fine. If it is pay per view, the deal sucks big time.

It's not pay per view (i.e. $5 for this game, $5 for that game, $10 for the big one, etc.) it's a flat $4.99 per month for access to all of the ESPN+ content.

It's Netflix for sports.

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

Believe its now in the $100-120k per school with the CUSA slightly better. ArStFan tells us that the MAC is in the $650 range so it would take a sharp increase to approach their level.

(03-01-2018 02:13 PM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

Believe its now in the $100-120k per school with the CUSA slightly better. ArStFan tells us that the MAC is in the $650 range so it would take a sharp increase to approach their level.

The MAC I think is in the $800k range, but they probably have 25+ weekday games each season to our 6-8.

(03-01-2018 02:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:13 PM)Florida RedWolf Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

Believe its now in the $100-120k per school with the CUSA slightly better. ArStFan tells us that the MAC is in the $650 range so it would take a sharp increase to approach their level.

The MAC I think is in the $800k range, but they probably have 25+ weekday games each season to our 6-8.

I've seen MAC cited as $675k to $800k

This will all be driven by content. Right now it's a no sale with me. I'd only want it during football season and I doubt they'll allow you to sign up and drop when you want. I anticipate a yearly contract. Details will help me make my decision. But if it's Sunbelt, soccer and hockey I'll do something else those days.

(03-01-2018 02:29 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  This will all be driven by content. Right now it's a no sale with me. I'd only want it during football season and I doubt they'll allow you to sign up and drop when you want. I anticipate a yearly contract. Details will help me make my decision. But if it's Sunbelt, soccer and hockey I'll do something else those days.

Most streaming services are monthly payment, cancel anytime subscriptions. It would be pretty stupid of ESPN+ to make you pay a year upfront for their brand new service. That's just bad marketing.

(03-01-2018 02:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:29 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  This will all be driven by content. Right now it's a no sale with me. I'd only want it during football season and I doubt they'll allow you to sign up and drop when you want. I anticipate a yearly contract. Details will help me make my decision. But if it's Sunbelt, soccer and hockey I'll do something else those days.

Most streaming services are monthly payment, cancel anytime subscriptions. It would be pretty stupid of ESPN+ to make you pay a year upfront for their brand new service. That's just bad marketing.

Exactly. Streaming services may do everything in their power to get people to do an annual subscription. But they will always offer a monthly cancel whenever package.

I do that with mlbtv. Pay monthly and on years the Mets suck, just cancel and renew following year